Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 2 Apr 2014 15:27:59 -0400 | From | Matthew Wilcox <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 04/22] Change direct_access calling convention |
| |
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 05:30:28PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > @@ -379,7 +379,9 @@ static int brd_direct_access(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector, > > *kaddr = page_address(page); > > *pfn = page_to_pfn(page); > > > > - return 0; > > + /* Could optimistically check to see if the next page in the > > + * file is mapped to the next page of physical RAM */ > > + return PAGE_SIZE; > This should be min_t(long, PAGE_SIZE, size), shouldn't it?
Yes, it should. In practice, I don't think anyone's calling it with size < PAGE_SIZE, but we might as well future-proof it.
> > @@ -866,25 +866,26 @@ fail: > > bio_io_error(bio); > > } > > > > -static int > > +static long > > dcssblk_direct_access (struct block_device *bdev, sector_t secnum, > > - void **kaddr, unsigned long *pfn) > > + void **kaddr, unsigned long *pfn, long size) > > { > > struct dcssblk_dev_info *dev_info; > > - unsigned long pgoff; > > + unsigned long offset, dev_sz;
> > - return 0; > > + return min_t(unsigned long, size, dev_sz - offset); > ^^^ Why unsigned? Everything seems to be long...
offset is unsigned long ... but might as well do the comparison in signed as unsigned. 'size' shouldn't be passed in as < 0 anyway.
| |